Nghiên cứu về các lượng từ tiếng anh dùng như phương tiện rào đón che chắn trong các luận văn của học viên cao học tiếng anh ở trường đại học ngoại ngữ đại học quốc gia hà nội

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
**************

NGƠ THỊ HỊA

A STUDY OF THE ENGLISH QUANTIFIERS AS HEDGES USED IN
THESES BY MA STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

(Nghiên cứu về các lượng từ tiếng Anh dùng như phương tiện rào
đón(che chắn) trong các luận văn của học viên cao học tiếng Anh
ở trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ, Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01

Hanoi- 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
**************

NGƠ THỊ HỊA

A STUDY OF THE ENGLISH QUANTIFIERS AS HEDGES USED IN

THESES BY MA STUDENTS OF ENGLISH AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

(Nghiên cứu về các lượng từ tiếng Anh dùng như phương tiện rào
đón(che chắn) trong các luận văn của học viên cao học tiếng Anh
ở trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ, Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01
Supervisor: ĐỖ THỊ THANH HÀ, Ph.D

Hanoi- 2014


DECLARATION
I hereby certify the thesis entitled “A study of the English quantifiers as hedges used in
theses by MA students of English at the University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi” is the result of my own research for the Degree of
Master of Arts at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi. The contents of this thesis have not been published anywhere for any
purposes. I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library can be accessible for
the purposes of study.
The work was carried out under my supervisor, Do Thi Thanh Ha Ph.D, at University
of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

Hanoi, September 2014
Student’s signature

Ngơ Thị Hịa

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my special thank to my supervisor, Do Thi
Thanh Ha, Ph.D for her enthusiastic guidance as well as her helpful comments and
suggestions during the research process.
I wish to send my deep gratitude to Ngo Huu Hoang, Ph.D for his inspiration to do
this research topic.
I also wish to express my sincere thank to the librarians who helped me a lot in
trying to suggest and encourage me to go on when I got in troubles for data collection.
Last but not least, my heart-felt thanks are sent to my family, my uncle, my best
friends and classmates those who always supported and encouraged me to complete this
thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT

This study investigates how English quantifiers are used as hedges in theses by MA
students of English at the University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS),
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. It explores intercultural characteristics of Vietnamese
minds influencing on their written English.
The samples for the study are 10 MA English theses of the ULIS. All of them have
been published from the last five years to make sure of the update. This study not only
mentiones to the uses of quantifiers in English theses but sheds light on their roles as
hedging devices in academic writing. The purpose of this study is to find out the

frequencies of using quantifiers in MA theses as well as to investigate the pragmatic
meanings of quantifiers used as hedges in these theses. This study is a quantitative and
qualitative research. It is based on the corpus combined with observation, description and
discussion in the light of pragmatics. The study helps to know how MA Vietnamese
students use quantifiers in written English, especially in theses.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................i.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................ii.
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1

1. Rationales ..................................................................................................................1
2. Significances of the study ..........................................................................................2
3. Aims of the study and Research Questions ..............................................................2
4. Scope of the study......................................................................................................2
5. Organization of the study...........................................................................................3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .........................................................4
1. Academic Discourse ................................................................................................4
2. Hedging in Academic Discourses............................................................................5
2.1.

Definitions of hedging ........................................................................................5

2.2.

Functions of hedging ..........................................................................................6

2.3.

Overview of hedging in second language writings.............................................7

3. Quantifiers................................................................................................................8
3.1.

Definitions of quantifiers ....................................................................................8

3.2.

Classification of quantifiers ..............................................................................10

3.3.

Functions of quantifiers ....................................................................................10

3.4.

Quantifiers in terms of pragmatics ...................................................................10

CHAPTER 2: The Study...................................................................................................13
2.1. Corpus ...................................................................................................................13
2.2. Procedure ...............................................................................................................13
2.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................13
2.4. Data analysis and Discussions ...............................................................................18
PART C: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................42

1. A summary of the findings ......................................................................................42

iv


2. Limitations of the study ...........................................................................................42
3. Suggestions for further studies ................................................................................43
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................44

v


PART A: INTRODUCTION
This initial chapter will introduce the rationales, the aims and the research questions,
together with the scope of the study. More importantly, this is also the chapter giving the
clearest guideline for the whole research.
1. Rationales of the study
Academic writing recently plays an important role in higher education and it also has
become a requirement or an assessment of the students’ knowledge through essays, studies,
or dissertations. In order to get language proficiency in writing, students have to learn and
practise a lot.
However, because of being non-native writers, they have many difficulties in gaining
the qualities of an academic writing such as formality, caution, succinctness. Besides, it
can be explained that their ways of thinking in Vietnamese have somehow influences on
their English writings. As Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang mentioned in Journal of Science and
technology (2014:67), Vietnamese culture prefers subtle,discreet and emotional ways of
speaking and always appreciates the balance of the relationships. In other words,
Vietnamese people often try to avoid conflicts in conversation. Vietnameses often say
“Miếng trầu là đầu câu chuyện”. It means that to start a conversation they tend not to go
straight to the point but have a roundabout way of saying something before. The purpose is

mainly to lead to topic of conversation sensitively. In writing, saying something in a
roundabout way may be the reason for redundancy but in some ways it becomes an
effective strategy to express their cautions in giving information without causing strong
disagreements from the readers. In English, it is so-called hedging. Hedging is one of the
prominent features in academic writing which appreciates the concept of cautious
language. Especially, to research issues, every information needs to be given persuasively
and clearly. However, not at all time writers can make sure of something absolutely
because in fact everything changes constantly. Therefore, to get both caution in language
and reality of the problems, people use quantifiers in their language. For example, in
“There are ten good students in class, the researchers may also replace it by using
quantifiers which are suitable with their meanings as follows:
There are many good students in class. (a)
There are a few good students in class. (b)
There are some good students in class.(c)
1


The sentence (a) can be explained that researcher considers the number “ten” as a large
number in comparison with the class. But when using quantifier “a few” in the sentence
(b), “ten” may be referred to a smaller number of good students while“some” in the
sentence (c) can be considered medium quantity. The questions are raised that why and
how they use these quantifiers instead of exact numbers and how Vietnamese culture
relects on their writings.
This study exams the uses of quantifiers as hedges in theses through investigating the
frequencies of using specific quantifiers. Moreover, it emphasizes pragmatic meanings in
using quantifiers as hedges in MA theses at ULIS. The research result will contribute to
develop the learners’ writing ability by using quantifiers for effective academic writing.
2. Significances of the study
The result of the study may
 enhance students’ awareness of the importance of using quantifiers as hedging

devices in academic writing.
 help students expand their lexical repertoire by understanding deliberately how
quantifiers are used in academic writing.
 find out in what ways Vietnamese ways of thinking have influences on English
academic writings.
3. Aims of the study and Research Questions
The study is aimed
3.1.

To identify the strategies and purposes of using quantifiers in written languages.

3.2.

To identify pragmatic meanings of using quantifiers as hedges in MA theses.

Research Questions
This study aims to answer the following research questions:
1. What are frequencies of using quantifiers in the Introductions and Discussions of
English MA theses at ULIS?
2. What are the uses of quantifiers as hedges in MA theses at ULIS?
4. Scope of the study
The study only focuses on using quantifiers as hedges in formal written discourse, not in
other written or conversational registers. It is analyzed in terms of pragmatics. Data
analysis concentrates on Introduction and Discussion sections of the MA theses.

2


5. Organization of the study
This thesis composes of three parts.

Part A, Introduction, presents the rationales, significances, aims, scope, and organization
of the study.
Part B, Development, consists of the following chapters.
 Chapter one, Theoretical background, presents the concepts relevant to the study
such as definitions of hedging and quantifiers, hedging in the second language
writings, hedging in terms of pragmatics, etc.
 Chapter two, The Study, is done to know how to choose samples, how to collect and
analyze data. It also discusses the findings of the study to find out the frequencies
of using quantifiers in the theses and to make some in-depth discussions.
Part

C, Conclusions and Implications, addresses the key issues in the study,

summarizing some limitations revealed during the process of conducting this research
paper.

3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter reveals background theories relating to the topic such as academic discourses,
hedging in academic discourses, definitions of hedging, definitions of quantifiers and their
functions, etc.
1. Academic discourses
According to Nunan (1993:5), “discourse can be defined as a stretch of language
consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way”. Those
several sentences can build a conversation (spoken form) or a text (written form).
Academic discourse is one type of discourse that has become a popular term in the
development of linguistics and it is considered as something standard. Academic discourse

in terms of written forms can be essay writings, journal articles, academic textbooks, or
dissertations, etc. Students are expected to reach the conventions of academic writing such
as formality, clarity and conciseness, etc. Therefore, academic discourse

inspires

researchers with much attention to many aspects and it also motivates students to gain
proficiency of the English language, especially at higher education. As cited in “Academic
Discourse and Critical Consciousness”, academic discourses are understood as the ways
of thinking and using language that prevail in the academy (Bizzell, 1992). In the
definition of academic discourse of Karen Bennett (2008:60), in the acamdemy may be in
research or higher educational environment. While Helsingin Yliopisto (2012:12) in the
one hand also defines academic discourse as using languaguage in the world of academy,
in the other hand he emphasizes academic discourse as the way of “enabling university to
go about teaching students and doing research”. Hyland (2004:11 cited in Martha, 2012)
points out his view of academic discourse which comprises of not only strict forms but
also pragmatic purposes.
While all academic discourse is distinguished by certain common practices, such as
acknowledging sources, rigorous testing, intellectual honesty, and so on, there are
differences which are likely to be more significant than such broad similarities. The ways
that writers chose to represent themselves, their readers and their world, how they seek to
advance knowledge, how they maintain the authority of their discipline and the processes
whereby they establish what is to be accepted as substantiated truth, a useful contribution

4


and a valid argument are all culturally-influenced practical actions and matters for
communication.
In conclusion, hedging is a rhetorical means of gaining reader acceptance of claims,

allowing writers to convey their attitude to the truth of their statements and to anticipate
possible objections.
2. Hedging in academic discourses
2.1.

Definitions of hedging

The concept, hedging, is a linguistic strategy originally coming from the view of Lakoff
(1972:195). He defines hedges as words which are able to make meaning “fuzzier or less
fuzzy”. Instead of stating: people love her, we add some quantifiers to this sentence: many
people love her, a few of people love her. It’s obvious that by adding quantifiers, the form
of the original sentence becomes softer as well as fuzzier about the sentence meaning and
awareness of quantities.
In Oxford Dictionary, hedge is defined as “a word or phrase used to avoid overprecise
commitment.” When mentioning to the commitment or promise, it requires people make
sure the certainty of the subject matter. Hedging devices minimize the level of commitment
as a way to protect the writers’ face from readers’ disagreement.
In Macmillan Dictionary, using hedge is “to avoid answering a question or making a
decision in a definite or direct way.” In other words, it makes sense of carefulness with
what you say because the things you say directly may threaten to your stance or lead to
negative reaction from readers.
Hyland (1998) cited in Hinkel (2004:313) states that “the purpose of hedging is to reduce
the writer‟s commitment to the truthfulness of a statement.” It shows that hedging is used
for the purpose of lowering the strong belief in something because the writers may not
make sure absolutely what they write or they do not want to cause arguments among
readers or more simply they express their cautiousness with what they state.
Brown & Levinson (1987) cited in Aloson (2010) mentions hedging in academic writing as
a politeness strategy to both avoid conflict and being proved wrong.
Generally, in order to understand exactly what hedging is in this study, some features of
hedging will be listed as follows:

 A device to support the writers in giving precise information as well as to show
writers’ responsibility to the truth of subject matter.
5


 A device to tone down their commitment level in order for readers to accept or
agree more easily.
 A device to get readers’ acceptance without enough evidence.
 A device to save face-threats and express politeness.
In this study I distinguish the two concepts: hedging and hedges. As far as I’m concerned,
hedging is an act as a barrier, defense to protect ones from possible conflict while hedges
are devices which are used to carry out hedging.
2.2.

Functions of hedging

Markanan and Schroder (1987) cited in Tony Duly-Evans (1998:92) has given some
functions of hedging as follows:
 Modifying the definiteness of an utterance or the weightiness of the information
given in it.
 Modifying or even hiding the attitude of the writer to the propositions put forward
in the text.
 Protecting the author from the possible attacks of the target group.
 Hiding who is responsible for the truth-value of what is being said.
 Appearing modest.
Rufaidah Kamal Abdul Majeed

(2005) in the “Analysis of Grammatical Forms and

Semantic Functions of Hedging in Political discourse” analyzed hedging based on the

following categories:
 Narrowers
 Broaders/looseners/wideners
 Strengtheners
 Weakeners
It is supposed that in the research papers there are no hedges because they are stating facts
or evidences. However, this study proves that like other types of writing people still use
hedges in theses. A these includes at least four mains parts, namely, introduction, method,
results and discussion. Tony Duly-Evans (1998:92) discussed functions of hedging and
hedging form as the two independent terms and they had to base on context which the
claims were made. He considered the realization of hedging in moves and persuaded that
such hedging realizations were done for many purposes such as avoid responsibility or
reduce commitment to the truth. Thesis is one of the academic writtings which requires
6


every given statement to be proved by evidence but not subjective opinions. In Tony’s
book, he introduced the moves in Introduction and Discussion.
With Introduction, the moves consist of the followings:
 Claiming relevance of field,
 Establishing the gap which the present research fills in,
 Previewing the author’s contribution.
With Discussion, the moves are
 Reporting accomplishment,
 Evaluating the congruence of their findings with regard to other criteria,
 Offering an interpretation for their findings,
 Warding off counterclaims,
 Stating implications for researches, theories, or social practices.
2.2. Overview of hedging in second language writings
Hedging in second language writings

Second language writings are referred to the writings made by non-native writers.
Therefore, to write an essay or a research in academic style requires much effort and
practice. Especially, students writing in a second language have to deal with many
challenges related to language acquisition. John (1997) found that many non-native
speakers (NNS) such as graduate and under-graduate students, after years of ESL training,
often fail to recognize and appropriately use the conventions and features of academic
written prose. It is explained that these students produce academic papers and essays that
faculty perceive to be vague and confusing, rhetorically unstructured, and overly personal.
In the view of many faculty John interviewed, NNS students’ writing lacks sentence-level
features considered to be basic-for example, appropriate uses of hedging, balanced
generalizations. ( Hinkel, 2004, p4).
Second language writers need to acquire language proficiency, writing strategies, or
technique. Moreover, they not only need to obtain proficiency in the use of language but
also be aware of the influences of social cultural experiences in their native language on
the second language writing. Hedging is an appropriate technique in academic writing
because it has a lot of benefits to make the writings become better. In academic writing, it
is not only necessary to show ability in writing but the writers’ stance or their points of
views.
7


Language used in hedging
In fact, there are many types of hedging as cited in “Hedging in academic writings” of
University of London. And quantifier as hedge is one type of them that is mentioned in
Hinkel’s book (2004).
Modal auxiliary verbs

may, might, can, could, would, „Such a measure might be more
should
sensitive to changes in health

after specialist treatment.‟
Modal lexical verbs
to seem, to appear (epistemic „In spite of its limitations, the
doubting and
verbs), to believe, to assume, study appears to have a number
evaluating rather than to suggest, to estimate, to
of important strengths.‟
merely describing
tend, to think, to argue, to
indicate, to propose, to
speculate
Probability adjectives possible, probable, un/likely
„It is likely to result in failure.‟
Nouns
assumption, claim, possibility, „We estimate that one in five
estimate, suggestion
marriages end in divorce.‟
Adverbs
perhaps, possibly, probably,
„There is, perhaps, a good
practically, likely,
reason why she chose to write in
presumably, virtually,
the first person.‟
apparently
Approximators of
approximately, roughly,
„Fever is present in about a third
degree, quantity,
about, often, occasionally,

of cases.‟
frequency and time
generally, usually, somewhat,
somehow, a lot of
Introductory phrases believe, to our knowledge, it is „We believe that there is no
our view that, we feel that
simple explanation.‟
“If” clauses
if true, if anything
„If true, our study contradicts the
myth that men make better
managers than women.‟
Compound hedges
seems reasonable, looks
it may suggest that; it seems
probable
likely that; it would indicate
that; this probably indicates)
Table 1: Language used in hedging
3. Quantifiers
3.1 . Definitions of Quantifiers
From grammar perspective, most of people think that quantifiers are function words but
not content words such as noun, verb, adjective, adverb so they have not seen its important
role in the context. In fact, quantifiers which precede nouns can make difference in

8


meanings. For instance, the difference is clear between “having no friends” or “ having a
lot of friends”.

In the view of Quirk (1973:62), quantifier is one of the three classes (predeterminer,
ordinal, and quantifier) which can occur before the head of the noun phrase.
In the book “Grammar finder” of Oxford learner’s grammar (2005:220) quantifier is
defined very simply that “A quantifier say how many or how much.” It shows that
quantifier expresses a number or the amount of something.
“Quantifier is a type of determiner which denotes imprecise quantity. They differ from
numbers or numerals which indicate precise quantity” (Quantifiers in English, 2013). This
definiton distinguishes between numbers/numerals (số từ) and quantifiers (lượng từ). In
contrast to numeral which gives the exact amount of something or describles specific
individuals, quantifier makes the sentence meaning become more general or vague. For
examples:
Tôi làm được ba bài tập về nhà. (ba is a specific number)- I have done three exercises.
Tôi làm được mấy bài tập về nhà. ( mấy is a quantifier)- I have done some exercises
Sometimes numeral can be used as quantifier:
Ăn ba miếng lót dạ. - it doesn’t mean he eats exactly three pieces but refer to the
unimportant eating
About three students make a group. - the number of students to stay in a group is around
three but not obligatory number)
Sometimes it can be exaggerated:
All students study hard- it makes an arbitrary assertion.
Overall, quantifier is one which makes the meaning of the sentence become more vague.
The writers can make use of it when they do not intend to give exact number or
information without absolute evidence to protect themselves from readers’ disagreements.
It may help mitigate or increase statement in conveying the author’s message.
In the book “Fuzzy Quantifiers: A computational Theory” of Ingo Glocker (2006:2), he
gave examples of quantification to prove that quantifiers are used in many areas of
everyday life such as economics, literature, politics and studies.
Finance and Economics:
Many firms have stopped making markets (p.75)
Business:

Most bosses assume they can change prices of ten and with little effort (p.63)
9


Few bussiness schools teach pricing as a discipline (p.63)
Politics:
Many Indians admit that they have misgoverned their only Muslim-majority state...(p.25)
Several seperatist leaders....seem even more winning to co-operatate with India. (p.26)
Literature and Arts:
Few living novelists write better than Mr.Winton about the sea (p.89)
Studies of Feminisim:
Some radical women preached free love while most emphasised sexual purity ...(p.89)
Table 2: Examples of NL quantification in various areas of everyday life. Source:
The economist 25-31/5/2002
3.2. Classification of quantifiers
There is no clear-cut quantifier scope because it is one type of determiners. Sometimes
numbers or indefinite pronouns also can function as quantifiers. However, the scope of
quantifiers in this study is based primarily on the classification of Quirk (1973:11). He
classified quantifiers into three types
a. Multual quantifiers: many and much
b. Paucal quantifiers: few and little
c. Several and enough
Multual quantifiers refers to large quantities and paucal refers to small quantities.
Quirk divided quantifiers into two types, closed-system quantifiers and a large open class
of phrasal quantifiers. Because this is a minor thesis, the scope of the research only goes
deeply analysis of the first type. Close –system quantifiers is cut into two small groups as
bellows,
 Many, (a) few, several precede with plural count nouns
 Much, (a) little precede with non-count nouns
3.3. Functions of Quantifiers

Most of the quantifiers precede noun and they have the role of showing amount or
quantity. In discourse, they help to determine the exact amount that people have in mind
for the purpose of improving risk communication.
3.4. Quantifiers in terms of pragmatics
Hedging in pragmatics
Hedges play an important in indicating what people are saying or writing may not be
absolutely precise. Most of the researchers studied hedges in conversational discourse to
get to know its roles as a means of showing politeness, facilitating turn-taking or

10


mitigating face-threats. This paper pays much attention to the role of hedging in academic
writing, more specifically; it is the use of quantifiers as hedges in theses. Hyland (1996:1)
concerned with hedging in writing and saw that in case of needing to give unproven
information, hedging devices are very necessary in academic writing. Milan Milanovie
(2010:124) mentioned some reasons for using hedges, one of which is to “reducing levels
of certainty of the truth of propositions”. With debating topics, it should be safer for
writers not to give the true or false answers totally. In this situation, hedging becomes a
means of conveying vagueness purposely to show the writers’ caution and also to reduce
the riskiness of what they say.
Quantifiers as hedges in term of Pragmatics
Quantifiers were clearly defined in the book “Focus on Grammar” by Jay Maurer:
Quantifiers sate precisely or suggest generally the amount or number of something.
English has many expressions to quantify nouns and pronouns. These are comprised of
phrases or single words that come before the noun or pronoun. (Maurer, 1997)
It is the above definition that shows two purposes of using quantifiers. One is to say exact
numbers or amounts; the other is to make something more general. Obviously, quantifiers
are used as hedges with the second purpose in order to reduce the scope of a claim.
The using of quantifiers for the first purpose without adequate evidence may lead to

exaggerations, hyperboles, or overstatements. According to Hinkel (2004:328), the writer
can overstate or exaggerate a proposition in informal and conversational discourse in
English but they require not using it in formal academic writing. Using quantifiers are
considered as a good way to present something without overstating it.
Grice’s Maxims
Grice’s cooperative principle
The cooperative principle of Grice (1975) cited clearly in Yule (1996:36) as follows:
The cooperative principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged.
The maxims
Quantity
+ Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of
the exchange).
11


+ Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true
+ Do not say what you believe to be false
+ Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Relation: Be relevant
Manner: Be perspicuous
+ Avoid obscurity of expression
+ Avoid ambiguity
+ Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
+ Be orderly
This cooperative principle consists of four maxims: quantity, quality, relation and manner.
Following these maxims is considered as an ideal way to involve people in
communication. With maxim of quantity, it is matter of informativeness. It requires the

writers to provide enough information for readers to comprehend. Maxim of quality
focuses on saying what they believe to be true and have evidence for what they write.
While maxim of relevance pays attention to the content of information and communication
messages which need to be in relevance, maxim of manner considers the form of writing. It
means that the writer has to write in a way that the reader can understand his message.
However, in fact people may violate these maxims to achieve some other purposes
intentionally or by accident. According to Yule (1996:37), “there are certain kinds of
expressions speakers use to mark that they may be in danger of not fully perspicuous”,
which is called hedges. To some extent, what we give may flout the cooperative principle
but we still need to be cooperative in conversation. Hedging seems to be a good way to
solve this problem. For instance, with maxim of manner, not all the time we can give the
absolute answer to every problem; therefore, vague language becomes a safe way to
convey meanings.

12


CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
The chapter covers four main parts, namely, corpus, procedure, and methodology and data
analysis and discussions. It gives the research methodology more clearly and discusses
the findings of the research.
2.1. Corpus
The corpus of this study is a collection of 10 English theses written by MA Vietnamese
students at English Department of Postgraduates Studies of ULIS. There are not many
differences in choosing samples between English linguistic field and English teaching
methodology field. To ensure all the samples are up-to-date, the scope of the research
focuses on 10 papers published during the last five years (2009-2013).
The method to choose samples is simple random sampling. The population is all of the MA
students’ English theses in the English Department of Postgraduates at ULIS. Since this
paper studies the way MA Vietnamese students use quantifiers as hedges, international

students’ theses are not counted and Ph.D theses are also removed. The lists of theses each
year are formed in excel and then chosen randomly by following these steps:
Step 1: Copy name list of the writers according to year on the other Excel page
Step 2: Drag the mouse to select all the contents of the column
Step 3: Click on any blank cell and type in the following function:
=INDEX(A1:A85, RANDBETWEEN(1, 85))
Step 4: Press enter button and a random name in the name list will be selected out
Press enter continuously to have enough 10 theses. The backgrounds of the writers were
not interested in the research.
2.2. Procedure
Since all samples were theses, at least they were written according to the main parts,
namely introduction, methodology, data analysis, result & discussion, and conclusion. To
have frequency of using quantifiers in the whole of the theses, Nvivo software are used to
support for exactly counting. It also helps the researcher count the frequencies of
quantifiers used separately in the Introductions and Discussions. The frequency is based on
the average number of occurrence which is the most frequent on 1000 words.
2.3. Methodology
Research methodology includes quantitative and qualitative.

13


This study use quantitative method to find out which quantifier is the most popular and
which one is the least popular within the quantifier classification. Because the study
focuses on Introduction and Discussion sections of theses, a comparison of quantifier
frequency between these two parts will be done.
Then qualitative method will be applied to analyze pragmatic meanings of using
quantifiers as hedges.
Data analysis method is document analysis. Document analysis is valuable for collecting
qualitative data. Firstly, it is used to count the frequency of quantifiers used in the corpus

to identify which one is the most popular (word frequency). Then, in-depth studies are
conducted in the real context of the text to identify the purpose in using quantifiers as
hedges (pragmatic analysis).
2.4. Data analysis and Discussions
2.4.1. Quantifier frequency
Frequencies of using quantifiers in the Introductions and Discussions of English MA theses
at ULIS
Quantifiers
Multal
quantifiers
Paucal
quantifiers

Text
many
much
few
little
several
enough

1
13
1
0
1
3
0

2

13
4
1
0
0
0

3
0
0
3
0
0
0

4
34
15
2
2
1
1

5
8
3
0
0
1
0

6
18
6
7
8
6
1

7
23
7
0
7
10
5

8
11
14
4
3
7
3

9
10
4
0
0

1
0

Chart 1: Frequency of using quantifiers in theses

14

10
13
12
3
2
3
7

total
143
66
20
23
32
17

100%
47.5
21.9
6.6
7.6
10.6
5.6

The pie chart illustrates the frequency of using quantifiers in MA theses at ULIS to see
whether they are often used or not in the theses and to identify which quantifier is the most
popular and which one is the least popular in the MA theses.
Firstly, the biggest percentage is many. It means that the majority of MA students
considered the use of quantifier many with over 40% of the total. Meanwhile, the least
percentage, only 5.6 %, belongs to enough. It shows that enough as quantifier is not
popular in students’ writings. In comparison with the using of little and few, there is no
significant difference among them with deviation of 1%. Furthermore, quantifier much is
used three times as many as little although they both co-occur with non-count nouns while
several and few which only co-occur plural count nouns have not considerable distance,
10.6% and 6.6% respectively.
Overall, it can be seen that there is a slight difference in all types of given quantifiers.
However, many is still the first priority in most of the MA theses.
Frequency of using quantifiers in Introduction sections of English theses of MA students
at ULIS
Multal
quantifiers
Paucal
quantifiers

Text
many
much
few
little
several
enough

1
2
0
0
0
1
0

2
1
1
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
0
0
0
0

4
2
2
0
0
0

0

5
0
1
0
0
0
0

6
2
2
2
0
2
0

7
0
0
0
0
2
1

8
1
1
0

0
0
0

9
2
0
0
0
0
0

10
1
1
0
0
0
0

Chart 2: Frequency of using quantifiers in Introduction sections
15

Total
11
8
2
0
5
1

%
40.7
29.6
7.4
0
18.5
3.7


The chart illustrates the frequency of using quantifiers in Introduction sections in chosen
theses.
As described in the chart, there are significant differences between the use of many and
little in the Introduction parts. It is clear that most of MA students use quantifier many with
approximately 41 percent while there is no use of little in their theses. The next position in
this level belongs to quantifier much with almost 30 percent of using. Another quantifier is
also used in introduction section is several with approximately 19% while the rest few and
enough merely take small proportion (each only under 10 percent) with nearly 8% and 4%,
respectively.
Generally, the large quantities (many/much) are the most popular choice of MA students to
introduce their theses. Several gets the medium position while others are much less
preferred.
Frequency of using quantifiers in Discussion sections of English theses of MA students at
ULIS?
Multal
quantifiers
Paucal
quantifiers

Text

many
much
few
little
several
enough

1
1
3
0
1
0
0

2
0
2
0
0
0
0

3
0
2
3
0
0
0

4
11
6
1
1
0
3

5
3
1
0
0
0
0

6
8
3
3
4
1
0

7
9
3
0
5

2
2

8
2
6
1
1
5
0

9
5
2
0
0
1
0

Chart 3: Frequency of using quantifiers in Discussion sections
16

10
3
4
1
2
0
5

Total
42
32
9
14
9
10

%
36.2
27.5
7.7
12
7.7
8.6


The bar chart above shows the percentage of using quantifiers in Discussion sections.
Generally, all of the chosen quantifiers have been used in Discussion parts of MA students.
One of the most striking features of the chart is the percentage of using many to discuss
with 36.2%. Much is used less than many but still be the favourit one in their theses with
nearly 30%. Noticeably, over 10 % of using little in the discussion sections it is chosen
more than several and few.The rests remain nearly the same percentage with each under
10%. Specially, several and few have the same percentage of using.it may mean that they
are used with the same purpose.
Overall, it can be seen that there is a slight difference in most of the using quantifiers.
However, students still prefer the large quantities (many/much) to express their ideas.

Chart 4: Frequency of using Quantifiers in Introduction & Discussion sections
This chart gives comparison between the frequency of using quantifiers in Introduction

sections and that in Discussion sections.
It can be seen from the chart that many and much still get the largest percentages and they
have no change in the two sections because many is still a little more used than much in
the two parts . However, with quantifiers several, although its frequency is more in the
Introduction than in the Discussion, the deviation between two kinds is considerable,
18,5% and 7,7%, respectively. The significant deviation also has to mention to frequency
of using quantifier enough but it is used in the Introduction less than in Discussion parts.
While the use of few remains nearly the same in both sections around 7%-8%. Noticeably,

17


while little is rarely used or even has no use in Introduction, it is paid attention to in the
Discussion with 12%.
Overall, many and much are the most two popular quantifiers in both two sections.
2.4.2. Functions of quantifiers as hedges
Functions of quantifiers as hedges in MA theses at ULIS
A thesis often includes four main parts, namely, Introduction, Methodology, Result and
Discussion, Conclusion. However, with Result and Discussion sections, not all of the
authors name it exactly the same although they have the same meanings. Different names
of Discussion sections are not interested in this study. Chosen discussion sections refer to
sections which apply theoritical backgrounds into analysis.
According to Lewin (1994) and Lewin and Fine (1996) cited in Tony Duly-Evans (1998),
hedging is realized in moves in terms of discourse stratum. They provided specific moves
in the Introductions and Discussions.
This study will base on those moves to analyze step by step. Realization of hedging in
each move will be classified according to semantic functions which were picked up from
“Analysis of Grammatical Forms and Semantic Functions of Hedging in Political
discourse” by Instructor Rufaidah Kamal Abdul Majeed. Then an analysis of using
quantifiers will be carried out to determine whether the uses of quantifiers have the same

functions as hedges or not.
Titles of 10 theses used in the study
Text 1: Incorporating English cultural elements into English training with the comparingcontrasting approach: a case of tourism students at Haiphong community college.
Text 2: An English-Vietnamese cross-cultural study of idioms with colors and its
implications to ELT
Text 3: The meaning and structure of a fairy tale: a systemic functional analysis.
Text 4: Problems and solutions in teaching and learning medical vocabulary at Thanhhoa
medical college.
Text 5: Nominalization in legal discourse: a systemic functional analysis.
Text 6: Improving students’ reading comprehension through predicting strategy
instruction: an action research at Cao Ba Quat upper secondary school.
Text 7: The translation of environmental terminology from English into Vietnamese.

18